Jump to content
IGNORED

Predators, Dangerous Deviants & J.D. Hall of Pulpit & Pen


Danger Noodle

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  318
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   85
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  03/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

22 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

This is certainly your opinion as how you interpret the Bible.

It is not an "opinion," it is a fact that neither Eternal Security (Stanley) or Calvinism (Spurgeon) is the Gospel!

To say so demands that if you don't believe it, you do not have the Gospel. And if you do not have the Gospel, you really cannot be saved!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,239
  • Content Per Day:  0.86
  • Reputation:   1,686
  • Days Won:  6
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, Jeff2 said:

Can I make a small observation? Look back at the responses. The article quoted many facts, and tons of Scripture to back its argument, yet people key is on some emotional argument, or just make an ad hominem argument in return.

The whining about the author's judgement on the character of those who teach Gnostic error is such a minor point, and does not undo any doctrinal points that have been made. If one can just dismiss all facts because they are insulted, then should I dismiss every person that does not agree with me? Yet, I am where I am today because I was willing to listen to opposing views. 

I don't know who Ed Young is, and I have never listened to Tony Evans, but the others I have; and they teach much Gnostic doctrine. Ironically, the only appeal to defeat this argument is an argument based on "Tradition." Perhaps many should trace those doctrines back to find where they originate. 

Good morning Jeff,

I have been in and out of this thread so I may have missed something.  Would you mind giving me your definition of GNOSTICISM?  I want to make sure we are on the same page. Thanks

spock

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  318
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   85
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  03/20/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 minute ago, Spock said:

Good morning Jeff,

I have been in and out of this thread so I may have missed something.  Would you mind giving me your definition of GNOSTICISM?  I want to make sure we are on the same page. Thanks

I would like to, but I have to get to work this morning. I should be able to give a rough outline for your consideration this afternoon. keep in mind that the Bible addresses different aspects of Gnosticism (it seems like they were commonly known, yet assumed, without using the actual name). It was condemned in the Early Church, and has existed in many forms to include "Christian" versions of it. (The Gnostic Gospels that are easily found; yet were rejected by the Church and not included into our Cannon.)  To get overly specific would be like defining every nuance of every Baptist Church. Baskin Robbins 101 different flavors. So I will emphasize what the Bible shows light upon, and is concerned about, not every disgusting practice that I have read about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,239
  • Content Per Day:  0.86
  • Reputation:   1,686
  • Days Won:  6
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Just now, Jeff2 said:

I would like to, but I have to get to work this morning. I should be able to give a rough outline for your consideration this afternoon. keep in mind that the Bible addresses different aspects of Gnosticism (it seems like they were commonly known, yet assumed, without using the actual name). It was condemned in the Early Church, and has existed in many forms to include "Christian" versions of it. (The Gnostic Gospels that are easily found; yet were rejected by the Church and not included into our Cannon.)  To get overly specific would be like defining every nuance of every Baptist Church. Baskin Robbins 101 different flavors. So I will emphasize what the Bible shows light upon, and is concerned about, not every disgusting practice that I have read about them.

Okay, thanks. I look forward to reading it at your convenience. Drive safely. 

Spock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,239
  • Content Per Day:  0.86
  • Reputation:   1,686
  • Days Won:  6
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Okay, I caught up on this thread and I have a few observations:

1. Anyone calling Swindoll, MacArthur UNGODLY is extremely arrogant and slanderous. Shame on them. (Two people I know pretty well)  You could say either teach some false doctrines, but to call them ungodly is seriously wrong. 

2. The Doctrine of Imputed  righteousness sounds interesting but I can't say I believe it either. I know for sure Christ paid for our sins but I do not know he took my sin upon him to do this.  The unblemished sheep doesn't take sin upon itself when sacrificed, right? Not sure why Christ would. Why can't that "transaction" merely be a sin offering?  Nevertheless, I don't see how disagreement in this doctrine is a MAJOR disagreement. If you think it is major, I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why you think that. 

3. My thoughts on ETERNAL SECURITY (once saved, always saved) are this- I believe the Bible supports this, but I also believe the Bible supports its counterpart, PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. So, I guess I believe both, which is confusing I know.  I don't fret over it. I assume God will give me wisdom in due time. 

4. The definition I have always used when discussing GNOSTICISM is simply this- member of any of certain heretical early Christian mystical sects that claimed that matter was evil and denied that Christ had a natural corporeal existence. (Right out of a dictionary)  It seems to me some people are expanding that definition here, so I think we need to get on the same plane with our terms. 

Okay, let's see where we go from here.

spock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  53
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,371
  • Content Per Day:  0.87
  • Reputation:   1,489
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/05/2016
  • Status:  Offline

29 minutes ago, Jeff2 said:

But, this is an disagreement over the author's ad hominem argument; what about the substantive Biblical and doctrinal points that have been made?

I think the way  you are phrasing Eternal security as "the gospel" is misleading.   Search here for OSAS topics and you can see the views of many.     "In touch ministries" is Charles Stanely ministry .  Anyone can go there are listen to his sermons on this very subject.    

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  114
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  1,236
  • Content Per Day:  0.30
  • Reputation:   673
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  10/24/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/18/1970

Perhaps when listing a group of men as ungodly, saying you did not say they were the article did ... does not quite solve anything in this thread... maybe you could ( if you agree with the blogger) provide a list of quotes and sources where the accused in the list have said and promoted such teachings. Otherwise I don't see how this thread can be viewed or discussed as anything other than a witch hunt. If one wants to discuss the scriptures involved in the false teaching...pros and cons please ...continue. Otherwise, I do not see anything in this thread that is edifying whatsoever. 

 

God Bless, 

Hip 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  32
  • Topic Count:  471
  • Topics Per Day:  0.17
  • Content Count:  6,542
  • Content Per Day:  2.30
  • Reputation:   7,619
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  06/12/2016
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, Jeff2 said:

Even after the New Testament where Jesus chose plain fishermen... you seek "credentials"? For every Ph. D., there is another that will contradict the other one.

Besides, you show no none of your "credentials" to be eligible to criticize; so your comment has no value and will be disregarded.! If you don't have any real rebuttal but to question 'credentials," and have no proof or Scripture to show any error, it is tantamount to just a gripe, because you have no answers.    

 

They were fishermen at the beginning  but they were taught by christ for three years .Pretty good education. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,239
  • Content Per Day:  0.86
  • Reputation:   1,686
  • Days Won:  6
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

30 minutes ago, Hippie333 said:

Perhaps when listing a group of men as ungodly, saying you did not say they were the article did ... does not quite solve anything in this thread... maybe you could ( if you agree with the blogger) provide a list of quotes and sources where the accused in the list have said and promoted such teachings. Otherwise I don't see how this thread can be viewed or discussed as anything other than a witch hunt. If one wants to discuss the scriptures involved in the false teaching...pros and cons please ...continue. Otherwise, I do not see anything in this thread that is edifying whatsoever. 

 

God Bless, 

Hip 

Hi Hip,

i think if we stick to a few theological terms like Imputed Righteousness and Gnosticism we may have some value to continue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,239
  • Content Per Day:  0.86
  • Reputation:   1,686
  • Days Won:  6
  • Joined:  12/26/2013
  • Status:  Offline

42 minutes ago, warrior12 said:

I think the way  you are phrasing Eternal security as "the gospel" is misleading.   Search here for OSAS topics and you can see the views of many.     "In touch ministries" is Charles Stanely ministry .  Anyone can go there are listen to his sermons on this very subject.    

 

 

I agree with you, I don't see this as part of the Gospel either, has nothing to do with determining ones justification (salvation).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...